Kenosis

General Information一般信息

Theodor H Gaster
has pointed out two basic movements in rituals. The first he refers to as
rituals of Kenosis, or emptying; the other, as rituals of Plerosis, or
filling. Rituals of Kenosis portray the evacuating of the meaning of time as
it approaches the end of a cycle. The wearing down of time at this moment
produces noxious and defiling effects, and thus the appropriate response is an
ascetic form of behavior accompanied with austerities.西奧多H法莫替丁指出兩個基本運動儀式。
第一，他所指的儀式Kenosis ，或排空;另一方面，作為儀式的修復，或填補。
儀式Kenosis撤離描繪的意義，因為它時間的方法結束循環。佩戴下跌的時間在這一時刻產生有毒和褻瀆的影響，從而作出適當的反應是一個禁慾主義形式的行為伴隨著austerities
。In the rituals of
Plerosis, the filling of time or the beginning again of the new time, dramas of
excess and overabundance of power are portrayed in the rituals. Specific
dramatic roles in these rituals imitate the power of deities in bringing about
the renewal of the time of the
cosmos.在儀式的修復，填補了時間或重新開始，新的時間，戲劇過剩和過多的權力描繪的儀式。具體戲劇性的角色，這些禮儀模仿的力量，神在實現振興時間的宇宙。

Kenosis, Kenotic
Theology Kenosis ，虛己神學

Advanced
Information先進的信息

"Kenosis" is a
Greek term taken from Php.“ Kenosis ”是一個長期採取希臘從PHP 。2:7, where Christ is spoken of as
having "emptied himself" (RSV) and taken human form. There has been much
discussion about this entire crucial passage (2:6 - 11), and several
interpretations exist today.2點07分，在基督講的是有“掏空自己”
（呼吸道合胞病毒）和人類採取的形式。已有很多討論這整個的關鍵通道（ 2點06分-1 1） ，以及一些今天存在的解釋。Kenotic theology is a theology that
focuses on the person of Christ in terms of some form of self - limitation by
the preexistent Son in his becoming man.虛己神學是神學，重點對基督的人而言，某種形式的自我-限制的p
reexistent在他的兒子成為男人。Kenotic theology at the theoretical
level is a way of conceiving of the incarnation that is relatively new in the
history of reflection on the person of
Christ.虛己神學理論水平是一種設想的化身這是一個比較新的歷史反思人的基督。Some see this form of thought about
Christ as the most recent advance in Christology; others see it as a blind
alley.有些人認為這種形式的思考基督最近在基督推進;他人把它看作是一個死胡同。

History歷史

Kenotic theology can be said to have
begun as a serious form of reflection on Christology in the works of Gottfried
Thomasius (1802 - 75), a German Lutheran
theologian.虛己神學，可以說已開始成為一個嚴重的形式反映在基督的作品戈特弗里德托馬修斯（ 1802至1875年）
，德國路德神學。In general
kenotic theology was formulated in the light of three crucial
concerns.一般來說虛己制定了神學根據三個關鍵問題。

The primary
concern was to find a way of understanding the person of Christ that allowed his
full humanity to be adequately
expressed.關注的首要問題是要找到一種辦法了解基督的人，讓他充分人類得到充分的表達。Biblical studies had given the church
an intensified awareness that Christianity began in the earliest encounters with
the man Jesus.聖經研究提供了教會加緊認識到，基督教開始最早接觸的人耶穌。Critical scholarship was "recapturing"
him in the light of his environment.關鍵獎學金“奪回”他根據他的環境。It was becoming more sensitive to the
limitations of that "prescientific" era and was seeing more clearly the Synoptic
portrait of the human personality of the man Jesus.這是變得更加敏感的局限性說，
“前科學”的時代，是更清楚地看到的天氣肖像人的個性的人耶穌。All this conspired to force upon
theologians the need to affirm in new ways that Christ was truly
man.所有這一切陰謀後生效神學，需要申明的新方式，基督是真正的人。He grew, he hungered, he learned, he
appropriated his culture, and he exhibited its
limitations.他長大，他渴望，他的教訓，他撥自己的文化，他表現出其局限性。

All this must be
said about Christ himself, not merely about some abstract appendage called
humanity "assumed" by God the
Son.所有這一切都必須說，基督本人，而不僅僅是一些抽象的附屬物稱為人類“假設”上帝的兒子。

A second, equally
important concern was to affirm that God truly was in
Christ.第二，同樣重要的問題是申明，真正是上帝在基督。The creeds are correct: very God, very
man.的信條是正確的：上帝非常，非常的人。The problem is how this can be said
without turning Christ into an aberration.問題是如何這可以說沒有把基督成為一個畸變。If to be human is to learn, grow, etc.,
and to be God is to be omniscient, then how can we speak of one
person?如果將人類的學習，成長等，並要上帝是無所不知，那麼我們怎麼能說一個人？Must he not have had "two
heads"?他不應該有“兩國元首” ？

The third concern
stems in part from the first.第三個問題產生的部分原因是第一次。The age was learning to think in terms
of the categories of psychology.年齡是學習的角度來考慮問題的各類心理。Consciousness was a central
category.意識是中央的類別。If at our "center" is our
consciousness, and if Jesus was both omniscient God and limited man, then he had
two centers and was thus fundamentally not one of
us.如果在我們的“中心”是我們的意識，如果耶穌既是無所不知的上帝和有限的人，那麼他有兩個中心，因此根本不能成為我們的一員。Christology was becoming inconceivable
for some.基督已成為一些不可想像的。

The converging of
these concerns led to kenotic theologies in a variety of
forms.融合這些問題導致虛己theologies各種形式的。All shared a need to affirm Jesus'
real, limited humanity and limited consciousness along with the affirmation that
he is very God and very
man.所有的共同需要申明耶穌真實的，有限的人類和有限的意識與肯定，他非常非常上帝的人。The varying forms of the theory of
divine self - limitation were the way this was
attempted.不同形式的理論的神聖的自我-有限制的方式，這是企圖。

All forms of
classical orthodoxy either explicitly reject or reject in principle kenotic
theology.一切形式的古典正統要么明確拒絕或拒絕在原則上虛己神學。This is because God must be affirmed to
be changeless; any concept of the incarnation that would imply change would mean
that God would cease to be
God.這是因為，上帝必須申明是不變的，任何概念的化身這將意味著改變將意味著，上帝將不再是上帝。

Types類型

These concerns by no means force a
uniformity of formulations; in fact, there are many different possibilities
under the general category "kenotic
theology."這些問題絕不是強制統一的提法，事實上，有許多不同的可能性根據一般類“虛己神學。 ”There is a variety of possibilities for
a Christology in terms of the idea of a preincarnate self - limitation by God
the Son.有各種各樣的可能性基督方面的想法preincarnate自我-限制上帝的兒子。There are two broad categories for
understanding kenotic theories.有兩大類別虛己的理解理論。One concerns the relation of the
kenotic theory to traditional orthodox
formulas.一個關切的關係，虛己的理論傳統正統的公式。A kenotic theory can have the function
of being supportive modification of a traditional formula or it can be presented
as an alternative.阿虛己有理論的功能正在支持修改傳統的公式，也可以作為一種替代辦法。This is key difference between the
otherwise quite similar presentations given by Anglican Charles Gore in his
Bampton Lectures, The Incarnation of the Son of God (1891), and
Congregationalist PT Forsyth in his Person and Place of Jesus Christ
(1909).這是關鍵的區別非常相似另有所給予介紹聖公會查爾斯戈爾在他的班普頓講座，體現上帝的兒子（ 1891年）
，和公理角福賽思在他的個人和地點耶穌基督（ 1909年） 。

Both writers
clearly affirm a real commitment to an understanding of Christ as God and man,
yet Gore's kenotic proposal functions to reinforce his consistent and articulate
defense of Chalcedonian
orthodoxy.這兩個作家明確申明一個真正的承諾，了解基督為上帝和人類，但戈爾的虛己提案的職能，以加強其一貫的和明確的迦克國防正統。Forsyth sees his theory as a biblical
alternative to a static, Greek, outmoded formula found in the Chalcedonian
Definition.福賽斯認為他的理論作為聖經替代靜態，希臘，過時的公式中發現迦克定義。Both Gore and Forsyth are altogether
clear on their vision of Jesus' humanity, his growth, and limitations as part of
the meaning of his
identity.這戈爾和福賽斯是完全清楚他們的遠見耶穌人類，他的成長，和限制的一部分的含義了自己的身份。

A second
distinction within kenotic theories concerns the place of the concept within the
larger understanding of God's being and relation to the
world.第二個區別內虛己的理論關注的地方的概念在更大的理解上帝的福祉和有關的世界。The work of AE Garvie in Studies in the
Inner Life of Jesus (1907) shows the influence of a conservative form of
Hegelian speculation on the nature of the Trinity.工作Garvie聲發射研究中的內心生活的耶穌（
1907年）表明，影響一個保守的形式的黑格爾投機性質的三位一體。Here there is seen to be a movement or
dialectic within God between fullness (Father) and self - limitation /
expression (Son) that finds its historic expression in the incarnation
kenotically
understood.在這裡，被認為是一種運動，或在上帝的辯證關係豐滿（父親）和自我-限制/表達（兒子）的認定其歷史表達的化身k
enotically理解。

Thus kenotic
theology is not intended to be an ad hoc device for making sense of the Christ
event; rather the Christ event is the historic expression of the eternal
dialectic within the Triune
God.因此，虛己神學並不打算將一個特設裝置的決策意義上的基督事件，而是基督事件是歷史性的表達永恆的辯證的三位一體的上帝。Others also see the relation of God as
Creator to creation as a form of self - limitation, thus providing genuine human
freedom and the broad context for the more specific instance of divine self -
limitation in Jesus
Christ.其他人也看到上帝的關係是造物主創造的一種形式的自我-的限制，從而提供了真正的人類自由和廣泛的範圍內為更具體的實例神聖的自我-限制耶穌基督。The contrast to these more speculative
forms of kenotic theology would naturally be those forms which focus more
specifically on the incarnation as the exclusive act of divine self - limitation
for our
salvation.對比這些更多的投機形式的虛己神學自然會這種形式，重點更具體的化身作為唯一的神聖行為，自我-限制我們的拯救。

At least two
broad areas of distinction can be made in understanding the potential range of
kenotic theories.至少有兩個廣泛的領域區分，可了解潛在的各種虛己的理論。First is the crucial distinction on the
relation of a proposed kenotic theology to the history of
Christology.首先是關鍵的區分關係的建議虛己神學的歷史基督。Is the theory to be seen as an
alternative to existing dogma (Forsyth, Mackintosh) or a reinforcing
modification (Garvie, Weston)?是理論，被視為取代現有的教條（福塞斯，麥金托什）或加固改造（ Garvie ，韋斯頓）
？Secondly, is a
kenotic theology to be seen in its uniqueness as the act of divine self -
limitation (Forsyth), or is it to be seen as either the culminating historical
instance of the Trinitarian dialectic (Garvie) and / or the kenotic relation of
God to creation in general?其次，是一個虛己神學被認為在其獨特的行為，神聖的自我-限制（福賽思）
，或者是被視為最終無論是歷史的實例三位一體的辯證（ G arvie）和/或虛己關係上帝創造的一般？

Criticism批評

Kenotic theology as formulated in
Germany (1860 - 80) or in England (1890 - 1910) was clearly not without
challenge.虛己制訂神學在德國（ 1860年至1880年） ，或在英格蘭（ 1890年至一九一〇年）顯然是沒有的挑戰。Indeed, many believe that the
criticisms evoked have proven fatal.事實上，許多人認為，誘發的批評已經證明死亡。

A persistent
criticism has been that kenotic theology is not
biblical.持續的批評一直是虛己神學不是聖經。If one were to hold some sort of
development theory about the emergence of NT Christology, as do R Bultmann, J
Knox, RH Fuller, eg, then the most that could be said would be that kenotic
theology could at best reflect one of the emerging
models.如果一個人持有某種發展理論的出現，新台幣基督一樣，
R布特曼，強諾克斯，相對濕度富勒，例如，那麼最多可以說將是虛己神學可以在最能反映一個新興模式。If one holds to the Christological
unity of the NT, as do kenotic theorists in general, then the question is more
pointed.如果一個人的基督團結新台幣一樣，虛己理論家一般，然後的問題是更指出。What advocates of kenotic theology
would uniformly contend is that as an interpretative scheme their understanding
allows one to see Jesus Christ as a real, growing, limited man without creating
a sense that God is not somehow deeply involved in exactly this
man.什麼主張虛己將統一神學爭辯的是，作為一個解釋性計劃，讓他們了解一個看到耶穌作為一個真正的，不斷增長，有限的人沒有創造一種感覺，那就是上帝不是某種深深捲入正是這種人。

It is not a
question of the interpretation of Php.這不是一個問題的解釋的PHP 。2, but a question of how one sees God
and man in Jesus Christ. 2 ，但問題是，如何把一個上帝和人類的耶穌基督。Did Christ know or not know the time of
the end (Mark 13:32)?沒有基督知道或不知道的時間結束（馬克13:32 ） ？Orthodoxy said he must know, he is the
presence of the omniscient God; however, for some reason he has chosen not to
reveal this
knowledge.正統說，他必須知道，他是在場的情況下無所不知的上帝，然而，由於某種原因，他選擇不透露這方面的知識。Kenotic theorists insist that the text
says what it says.虛己理論家堅持認為，文說什麼說。He limited himself to his human and
real development; he was genuinely dependent on his Father; he did not
know.他自己有限的人力和真正的發展，他是真正依賴於他的父親，他不知道。The problem of who is biblical cuts
more than one way.這個問題誰是聖經削減多種方式。

A second
criticism clearly must focus on the fundamental credibility of the concept of a
divine self - limitation.第二次批評顯然必須把重點放在基本可信性的概念，神聖的自我-的限制。We must be clear here. Theology has
always countenanced a divine concealment for pedagogical purposes in
Christ.我們必須清楚這裡。神學一向贊同一項神聖的教學隱藏在基督的目的。He concealed his divine radiance and
became tangible so as to meet us in our darkened, fallen world on our terms
(Augustine).他隱瞞自己神聖的光芒，成為有形的，以滿足我們的黑暗，倒了世界對我們的術語（奧古斯丁） 。Kenotic theology goes a crucial step
beyond this; in the incarnation, however conceived, there was a preincarnate act
of limitation, whether it be a "laying aside" (Gore) or a "concentration"
(Forsyth).虛己神學進了關鍵的一步超越這個;在轉世，但是設想，有一個preincarnate行為的限制，無論是“擱置” （戈爾）或“集中”
（賽） 。It is something
like whether or not a missionary were to take his two - way radio (and thus his
link to his support system) with him into the
jungle.這是像與否的傳教士採取了他的兩個-雙向無線電（因此他的鏈接他的支持系統）與他的叢林中。How can Jesus Christ be God if we would
simultaneously affirm that during the incarnate life he was not
omniscient?如何才能耶穌基督是上帝，如果我們將同時申明，在生命的化身，他並不無所不知？

Following the
lead of Thomasius, some argued that there are two kinds of attributes, internal
(love, joy) and external (omnipotence, omnipresence,
etc.).領先後的多瑪西烏斯，一些爭辯說，有兩種屬性，內部（愛情，歡樂）和外部（無所不能，無所不在，等等） 。The eternal Son "set aside" the
external attributes and revealed the
internal.永恆的兒子“擱置”的外部屬性和揭示了內部。In him we see the love of Father - Son;
in him we see God's "heart" made
visible.在他身上我們看到了愛的父親-兒子;他，我們看到上帝的“心臟”作出清晰可見。AM Fairbairn carefully works this out
in his pioneering work, The Place of Christ in Modern Theology
(1895).上午費爾貝恩仔細工程這一點，在他的開創性的工作，地點在基督的現代神學（ 1895年） 。

Others of a more
speculative bent (eg, Garvie) contend that self - limitation is in God in his
"innertrinitarian" life.還有一個更投機彎曲（例如， Garvie ）認為，自我-限制是上帝在他的“ i
nnertrinitarian”的生活。Thus what is revealed in Christ is not
one act of self - limitation, but God the Son in his eternal self - limiting
obedient relation to the
Father.因此，什麼是顯示在基督不是一個自決行動-限制，但上帝的兒子在他的永恆的自我-服從關係限制的父親。The incarnation is thus seen to be the
revelation of the eternal relation of Father to Son and the saving love that
would include others.的化身，因此被視為啟示的永恆的關係，父親傳給兒子和節水愛，這將包括其他人。

The third
response focuses on the importance of goal or intention for
God.第三個反應的重點是重要的目標或對上帝的意圖。If God can be said to have as his
fundamental goal to bring lost children back to himself, then his omnipotence /
omniscience is precisely that which achieves the
goal.如果上帝可以說是他的基本目標，使失去孩子回自己，那麼他的全能/全知正是其中達到的目標。The greatest act of omnipotence can
then be seen as the Son's becoming "poor" that we may become rich in
him.最大的行為無所不能然後可以被看作是兒子成為“窮人” ，我們可能會成為他豐富的。

Omnipotence is
reconsidered more in terms of the goal in view than as an abstract
category.萬能更是重新方面的目標，認為不是一個抽象的類別。Forsyth worked with this idea at
length; he called it the "moralizing of dogma", that is, the reshaping of our
view of God from what he called static categories to dynamic ones reflecting
God's saving purposes seen in Christ.福賽斯與這一想法在長度;他所謂的“道德教條”
，也就是改變我們認為上帝從他所謂的靜態類動態的反映上帝的儲蓄目的中看到基督。Thus there were several ways those
holding a kenotic theology would attempt to make the concept of self -
limitation credible.因此，有幾種方式持有虛己神學將試圖使這一概念的自我-限制可信的。Further, the challenge was
reversed.此外，面臨的挑戰是扭轉。How, it was asked, can one make sense
of Jesus Christ as an omniscient being simultaneously living as a growing,
learning, limited man without creating a "twoheaded"
being?如何，有人問，能理解耶穌作為一個無所不知的生活正在同時作為一個成長，學習，有限的人沒有建立一個“ twoheaded
”嗎？Is the union of
natures conceivable without a divine self -
limitation?是工會的性質不可以想像的神聖自我-限制？Is not some form of docetism the only
alternative?難道不是某種形式的幻影說唯一的選擇？Did Jesus only look
human?難道耶穌只看人嗎？

The third
criticism has focused on the supposed strength of kenotic theology, the
consciousness of Jesus.第三次批評主要集中在假定的力量虛己神學，意識耶穌。Perhaps, it would be conceded, the
person of the Incarnate is more of a unity, but have we not created a new
duality between the preincarnate Son and the historical
Jesus?也許，這將是承認，人的降生更是一個團結，但我們不能創造了一個新的二重性之間的preincarnate兒子和歷史上的耶穌？Was there not an inconceivable loss (of
knowledge) at Bethlehem?是不是有一個難以想像的損失（知識）在伯利恆？Further, if the Son simultaneously
remained the transcendent Logos, is there not a radical, fatal discontinuity
between the consciousness of the transcendent Logos and the earthly
Jesus?此外，如果子同時仍然是至高無上的標識，有沒有根治，致命的連續性之間的意識超越理性和世俗的耶穌？It can be argued that at this point
kenotic theology is most strained.可以說，在這一點上虛己神學是最緊張的。However, the strain is fundamentally a
relocation of the same strain orthodoxy faces when it attempts to affirm very
God - very man in terms of the consciousness of the earthly
Jesus.然而，應變基本上是搬遷同一菌株的正統面臨的企圖時，非常肯定上帝-非常男子方面的意識耶穌的塵世。

The problem cuts
both ways.這個問題兩面性。For kenotic theology the tension is in
the cleavage between the preexistent and incarnate
Son.對於虛己神學的緊張局勢是在切割之間的preexistent和體現的兒子。For orthodoxy the tension is as great
as it attempts to comprehend in some measure how Jesus can be both the presence
of the omniscient God and a limited, growing
man.對於正統的緊張局勢是偉大的，因為它試圖理解在一定程度如何耶穌可以是在場的情況下無所不知的上帝和有限的，越來越多的人。

Summary綜述

Kenotic theology is in reality a
variant but new form of orthodox, biblical
faith.虛己神學，實際上是一變，但新形式的正統，聖經的信仰。It has appeared in a variety of forms
over the last century.它已出現在各種各樣的形式在過去的世紀。It has been vigorously debated, and
interest in it remains.它一直在積極進行辯論，並關心它依然存在。From one angle it can be seen as an
attempt to give conceptual substance to the great hymn of Charles Wesley that
speaks in awe that the Son would "empty himself of all but love" and die for a
fallen
humanity.從一個角度可以看作是試圖給物質概念的偉大讚美詩查爾斯韋斯利說說話敬畏的兒子將“空自己的一切，但愛”和死亡的下降人類。From another angle kenotic theology
reprsents an attempt to give central place to Jesus' limited yet sinless
humanity while affirming that the ultimate significance of that humanity was and
is that here on earth God the eternal Son has come, truly come, to
redeem.從另一個角度來看，虛己神學reprsents企圖使中央地方耶穌尚未無罪有限的人類同時申明的最終意義，人類過去和現在都認為在地球上的永恆上帝的兒子已經到來，真正，贖回。

SM
Smith釤史密斯(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
（規矩福音字典）

Bibliography目錄C Welch, God and
Incarnation in Mid Nineteenth Century German Theology; C Gore, Dissertations on
Subjects Connected with the Incarnation; WI Walker, The Spirit and the
Incarnation; F Weston, The One Christ; AB Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ; HEW
Turner, Jesus the Christ; W Pannenberg, Jesus, God and Man.
ç韋爾奇，上帝道成肉身在十九世紀中期德國神學; ç戈爾，論文的主題與體現;威斯康星沃克和精神的體現，女韋斯頓，一個基督;
AB公司布魯斯，侮辱基督;槎特納，基督耶穌; W潘內伯格，耶穌，上帝和人。

Kenosis

Catholic Information天主教新聞

A term derived
from the discussion as to the real meaning of Phil.術語源於討論的真正含義菲爾。2:6 sqq.: "Who being in the form of
God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied [ekenosen]
himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in
habit found as man." 2點06 sqq 。 ： “誰是形式的上帝，認為這不是搶劫是平等與上帝：但空[ ekenosen
]本人，採取的形式是一個僕人，正在取得的相似的男子，並在習慣找到人。 “

Protestant
opinions新教的意見

The early
Reformers, not satisfied with the teaching of Catholic theology on this point,
professed to a deeper meaning in St. Paul's words, but Luther and a Melanchton
failed in their
speculations.早期的改革者，而不是滿意的教學天主教神學關於這一點，聲稱向更深的含義在聖保羅的話，但海德和Melanchton失敗的揣測。John Brenz (d. 10 September, 1570), of
Tübingen, maintained that as the Word assumed Christ's human nature, so His
human nature not only possessed the Divinity, but also had the power to make use
of the Divinity, though it freely abstained from such a
use.約翰北京時間（草1570年九月十日）
，在蒂賓根大學，堅持認為，作為Word中承擔基督的人性，使他的人性，不僅具備了神，而且也有能力利用神，雖然它自由地投了棄權票從這樣的使用。Chemnitz differed from this
view.開姆尼茨不同於這一觀點。He denied that Jesus Christ possessed
the Divinity in such a way as to have a right to its
use.他否認耶穌的神擁有這樣一種方式，以有權使用。The kenosis, or the exinanition, of His
Divine attributes was, therefore, a free act of Christ, according to Brenz; it
was the connatural consequence of the Incarnation, according to
Chemnitz.該kenosis ，或荒廢，他的神的屬性，因此，一個自由的行為基督，根據北京時間;
，這是固有的後果，道成肉身，根據開姆尼茨。

Among modern
Protestants the following opinons have been the most
prevalent:在現代新教徒以下opinons一直是最流行的：

Thomasius,
Delitzcsh, and Kahnis regard the Incarnation as a self-emptying of the Divine
manner of existence, as a self-limitation of the Word's omniscience,
omnipresence, etc.托馬修斯， Delitzcsh
，並Kahnis方面體現作為一個自我排空的神聖的存在方式，作為一個自我限制的Word的全知，無所不在，等等

Gess, Reuss, and
Godet contend that the Incarnation implies a real depotentation of the Word; the
Word became, rather than assumed, the human soul of Christ. Gess
，羅伊斯，並代認為，體現意味著一個真正的depotentation的Word ;的Word變成，而不是假定，人的靈魂，是基督。

Ebrard holds that
the Divine properties in Christ appeared under the Kantian time-form appropriate
to man; his kenosis consists in an exchange of the eternal for a time-form of
existence.
Ebrard認為，神聖的特性出現在基督下的康德的時間適當的形式向男子，他的kenosis包括交換了永恆的時間形式存在。

Martensen and
perhaps Hutton distingusih a double life of the Word: In the Man-Christ they see
a kenosis and a real depotentiation of the Word; in the world the purely Divine
Word carries the work of mediator and revealer. According to Godet, and probably
also Gore, the Word in His kenosis strips Himself even of His immutable
holiness, His infinite love, and His personal consciousness, so as to enter into
a human development similar to
ours.馬敦生，或許赫頓distingusih雙重生活的詞：在滿基督，他們看到一個kenosis和一個真正的depotentiation的Word
;在世界上純粹的聖言的工作進行調解和revealer
。根據代，並可能還戈爾的Word在他的kenosis甚至親自帶他的神聖不可改變的，他的無限熱愛，以及他的個人意識，從而進入人類發展類似我們的。

Catholic
teaching天主教教學

According to
Catholic theology, the abasement of the Word consists in the assumption of
humanity and the simultaneous occultation of the Divinity. Christ's abasement is
seen first in His subjecting Himself to the laws of human birth and growth and
to the lowliness of fallen human
nature.根據天主教神學的自卑的字組成的假設人類，同時掩星的神。基督的自卑是他第一次在自己受到法律的人出生和成長的lowliness塌人類的本性。His likeness, in His abasement, to the
fallen nature does not compromise the actual loss of justice and sanctity, but
only the pains and penalties attached to the loss. These fall partly on the
body, partly on the soul, and consist in liability to suffering from internal
and external
causes.他的肖像，在他的自卑，到下降的性質不妥協的實際損失的正義和尊嚴，但只有痛苦和懲罰的損失。下降的部分，這些對身體的，部分的靈魂，包括在法律責任痛苦從內部和外部原因。

As to the body,
Christ's dignity excludes some bodily pains and
states.至於身體，基督的尊嚴排除一些身體上的痛苦和國家。God's all-preserving power inhabiting
the body of Jesus did not allow any corruption; it also prevented disease or the
beginning of corruption.上帝的所有保留電力居住在耶穌的身體不容許任何腐敗行為;它也阻止疾病或開始腐敗。Christ's holiness was not compatible
with decomposition after death, which is the image of the destroying power of
sin.基督的神聖不符合分解後死亡，這是形象的破壞力量的罪孽。In fact, Christ had the right to be
free from all bodily pain, and His human will had the power to remove or suspend
the action of the causes of
pain.事實上，基督有權利免受各種身體疼痛，和他的人將有權取消或暫停行動的原因，疼痛。But He freely subjected Himself to most
of the pains resulting from bodily exertion and adverse external influences, eg
fatigue, hunger, wounds, etc. As these pains had their sufficient reason in the
nature of Christ's body, they were natural to
Him.但他自由受到自己最痛苦的身體造成的消耗和不利的外部影響，如疲勞，飢餓，創傷，等等由於這些疼痛有其充分理由的性質，基督的身體，他們自然給他。

Christ retained
in Him also the weaknesses of the soul, the passions of His rational and
sensitive appetites, but with the following restrictions: (a) Inordinate and
sinful motions are incompatible with Christ's
holiness.基督留在他的弱點的靈魂，激情的理性和敏感的胃口，但下列限制： （一）過度和罪孽深重的請求不符合基督的神聖。Only morally blameless passions and
affections, eg fear, sadness, the share of the soul in the sufferings of the
body, were compatible with His Divinity and His spiritual
perfection.只有在道德上無可指責的情緒和情感，如恐懼，悲傷，所佔的靈魂在痛苦的機構，符合他的神和他的精神完美。(b) The origin, intensity, and duration
of even these emotions were subject to Christ's free choice. （ b
）在原產地，強度和持續時間甚至這些情緒受到基督的自由選擇。Besides, He could prevent their
disturbing the actions of His soul and His peace of mind. To complete His
abasement, Christ was subject to His Mother and St. Joseph, to the laws of the
State and the positive laws of God; He shared the hardships and privations of
the poor and the
lowly.此外，他可以防止其干擾的行動，他的靈魂和他安心。要完成他的自卑，基督是受他的母親和聖約瑟夫，以國家的法律和法規的積極上帝;他贊同艱辛和困苦的窮人和卑賤。(See COMMUNICATO IDIOMATUM.)
（見COMMUNICATO IDIOMATUM 。 ）